Revenue share lets a Box be sold once and have its earnings split automatically among the people who contributed to it — a photographer and their models, a DJ and featured artists, a producer, vocalist and mixer on a track. The split isn't separate bookkeeping: it's derived from the same verified consent record that ProntoTag already produces to authorize the content.
One source of truth proves who agreed to be in the Box and what each of them is owed. This document defines how that should work so we can design and build it consistently. Throughout, Recommendation marks a suggested default and Decision needed marks a fork to resolve before build. Numbers in examples are illustrative placeholders, not final rates.
Goals
Non-goals (v1)
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Box | A bundle of content sold as a single purchase. |
| Owner | The user who creates the Box, sets the price, and proposes the split. |
| Contributor | A person entitled to a share of a Box's revenue (including the Owner). |
| Share | A contributor's percentage of the distributable amount. |
| Split | The full set of shares for a Box. Must sum to 100%. |
| Consent record | The identity-verified ProntoTag release authorizing a contributor in the Box. |
| Distributable amount | What remains after processing and platform fees, to be divided by the split. |
| Payee account | A contributor's connected payout account (e.g. Stripe Connect). |
A contributor can only be in a split if they have an active, verified ProntoTag release for their part of the Box. That makes the consent ledger the roster for payment:
Treat the revenue share as a field on the consent request, so a contributor never approves their appearance without also seeing their cut. Approving one but not the other should be impossible.
Who sets it. The Owner proposes the split when building the Box. Every other contributor must explicitly accept their share (via ProntoTag approval) before the Box can go live.
Constraints (proposed defaults):
Changing a split. Before first sale, changing any share re-opens consent — affected contributors must re-approve. After first sale, the split in effect at the time of each sale is frozen for that sale; a new split only applies to future sales and needs fresh approvals.
Can the Owner take 100% (no other paid contributors) while still tagging people purely for consent reasons? Recommended: yes — consent and revenue share are independent, but a person must see and approve that they receive nothing.
For each sale, money is reduced in a fixed order, then divided:
Buyer pays (gross)
− payment processing fee (e.g. Stripe)
− TipSend platform fee (TipSend's cut)
= distributable amount
→ split by each contributor's share → payouts
Worked example (figures illustrative): Box price $20.00, processing ≈ −$0.88, platform fee 10% of gross −$2.00 → distributable $17.12, split Photographer 60% / Model A 25% / Model B 15%:
| Contributor | Share | Payout |
|---|---|---|
| Photographer (Owner) | 60% | $10.27 |
| Model A | 25% | $4.28 |
| Model B | 15% | $2.57 |
| Total | 100% | $17.12 |
Is the TipSend fee a % of gross (simple, predictable for us) or of the distributable amount (more generous to contributors)? Pick one and apply it everywhere.
Deduct processing from the pot before the split (shown above), or have TipSend absorb it? The first protects our margin; the second is a cleaner contributor story.
Compute each share in cents and use the largest-remainder method so rounded payouts always sum exactly to the distributable amount, with a deterministic tie-break (e.g. by join order). No orphan cent.
Option A. Per-sale splitting gives every contributor (and us) a clear record of "this sale, this split, this consent" — exactly the audit story the ProntoTag integration is built to support.
Backbone. Use a multi-party payout provider — Stripe Connect is the natural fit, since we already plan to use Stripe for the embeddable checkout. At sale, the platform fee is taken and each contributor's share is transferred to their connected account.
Onboarding. To receive money (not just be tagged), a contributor completes payout onboarding (identity + bank details). Being tagged and consenting is free and doesn't require it; receiving a share does.
Unclaimed / pending shares. If a contributor is owed money but hasn't onboarded: hold the share as pending (escrow), not forfeited; notify them; and prompt onboarding.
Define an expiry for held funds (e.g. 90/180 days) and what happens after — return to Owner, escrow, or otherwise — within what local rules on unclaimed funds allow. Also decide payout cadence (instant per-sale vs daily/weekly rollup) and any minimum payout threshold (rollups reduce transfer fees).
Consent is revocable at any time (ProntoTag → webhook → TipSend). Revenue share must respect that, and must distinguish future from past money.
When a Box is republished without a contributor, must the remaining contributors re-approve the new (larger) split? Recommended: yes — the split changed, so consent to it should refresh.
Who bears the chargeback fee — TipSend, or the contributors pro-rata?
This area most needs legal/tax counsel before launch — flag early.
Resolve the merchant-of-record model first — it changes everything else in this section. These are pointers, not legal advice; confirm specifics with counsel per market.
DRAFT → Owner composing the Box and proposing shares
PENDING → consent + share requests sent; awaiting approvals
ACTIVE → all approved; Box can be published and sold
SUSPENDED → a contributor withdrew; Box unpublished, sales paused
RECONFIGURING → Owner rebuilding the split without that party
RETIRED → removed from sale; historical payouts remain on record
Each sale stores a snapshot of the split that was ACTIVE at the moment of purchase, so later changes never rewrite past payouts.
When in doubt, default to the option that keeps consent and payment inseparable, every past sale immutable, and every payee verified. Those three properties are what make TipSend's revenue share trustworthy — and what let one record protect contributors, pay them, and stand up to scrutiny later.
Internal working document — for product and engineering review. Not a public commitment or legal/tax advice.